E-Mail This Article

View Archive Articles

Executives
Bias toward jobless seems to fade

	More from BostonWorks
		Featured Articles: There are other ways to save Balancing Acts Welcome home, dear Climb Have a plan to fight workplace harassment The Corporate Curmudgeon Is anyone really listening? Job Doc Prove that you've changed Transitions Focusing inward View from the Cube Making a case for naps Who's, What, Where This week's promotions The Job Blog Keep up to date with career news from around the web RSS XML Feed (What's this?)

The stigma may be lifting.

A survey of 323 recruiters by ExecuNet, the Connecticut-based career management and online recruiting firm, found that 81 percent believed bias against unemployed executives is not as pervasive or detrimental as it was five years ago, when the economy was booming and more US workers had jobs. In 2002, 24 percent of the executive job candidates presented to companies for possible employment were unemployed, up from 21 percent in 2001, and 13 percent in 2000.

At the same time, the survey revealed that companies are a lot more selective when screening candidates than in the past. In all, 86 percent of the recruiters said job specifications or qualifications are more demanding; 75 percent said companies are more cautious about relocating executives, and 74 percent said companies are less flexible when extending job offers and less likely to accommodate the needs of candidates.

DIANE E. LEWIS

Pension plans
Measure aims to allow some workers choice

Prompted by angry constituents, US Representative Bernard Sanders has introduced a bill requiring that companies seeking to switch from a traditional pension plan to a cash balance plan allow employees with at least a decade on the job to choose between the two.

Currently, about 300 big US employers have converted their traditional pension plans to cash balance accounts, which accrue benefits in predictable yearly increments. Under a traditional pension plan, employer contributions increase during the latter years of employment, giving long-term workers more value near the end of their tenure.

Employers say cash balance plans are less costly and better suited to the needs of younger, more mobile workers. But senior workers complain that their pensions are significantly reduced when converted to cash balance plans.

The bill introduced this month by Sanders, a Vermont Independent, and Representative George Miller, a California Democrat, requires that the Department of Treasury withdraw proposed cash balance conversion regulations that say that cash balance plans do not violate age discrimination laws. The measure also requires that companies provide advance notice of any future conversions as well as information on the current value of workers' pensions and estimated future values after the plan is converted.

On April 7, the Treasury Department rescinded a nondiscrimination clause in the pending regulation that would have prevented employers from permitting older workers to remain in their original pension plans. Other aspects of the regulation remained intact, however. Critics contend the regulations would give employers a green light to automatically convert traditional plans to cash balance plans.

''Any employee who is at least 40 years of age or who has worked for a company for 10 years should have the option to remain in their traditional defined benefit pension plan,'' said Sanders. He added that companies currently receive approximately $100 billion in federal tax incentives to set up pension plans for workers, and should not be allowed to automatically convert them to cash balance plans.

The bill, called the Pension Benefits Protection Act, is backed by the AFL-CIO and the 35 million-member AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons.

''The biggest concern for people who are in their 40s and 50s and still working is that they have already put in a lot of years of service at the smaller benefit level, and they are expecting to get more before they retire,'' said David Certner, director of federal affairs at AARP. ''They were relying on the fact that the longer they stayed with an employer, the more generous their pension plans became.''

As a result, unions and groups like AARP have lobbied hard against cash balance conversions. Even so, the proposed legislation faces stiff opposition from Republicans in Congress as well as the American Benefits Council in Washington, D.C.

The council, a trade association representing Fortune 500 companies, said yesterday that there could be ''serious negative consequences for workers'' if the Sanders-Miller bill is passed. The 250-member trade group added that the legislation would place new burdens on the nation's already declining benefit pension system. Since 1985, the number of traditional pension plans have dropped to 39,000 from 114,000, the group said.

''It would change the whole nature of employee benefits as being something that is voluntarily provided by companies,'' said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council. ''It would give workers the power to veto any change in their pension plan and that could cause companies to cancel them altogether. There is no requirement that employers finance a pension plan. They fund it, they design it, and they pay the promised benefits. But this, if it passes, would take away their right to design a plan they way they see fit.''

Even so, Vanessa Joe of Atlanta, a 49-year-old flight attendant, has launched a letter writing campaign to top brass at her company, urging them to grandfather long-term midcareer employees into the old pension plan and give those workers the opportunity to choose the plan they want to retire with - a cash balance plan or the current pension plan. She said her employer plans to convert its traditional defined benefits plan to a cash balance plan in 2010.

''I totally understand why companies are converting,'' said Joe, who is a flight attendant. ''It saves them a ton of money. But we should have a choice.''

DIANE E. LEWIS

Jobless benefits
Gap found in awards made to men, women

The National Employment Law Project and American University say many women are being shortchanged by their states' unemployment insurance systems.

In a recent study, the nonprofit legal group and the university's Program on Gender, Work & Family found that jobless men are more likely to receive unemployment insurance benefits than jobless women in 41 states. One reason: Women are more likely to leave jobs to care for children, spouses or sick parents.

The report, a state-by-state survey, shows that many states have qualification requirements or standards that do not recognize family reasons for leaving a job or do not pay benefits to part-time workers, many of whom are women.

According to the report:

• Thirty states lack provisions that guarantee jobless benefits to workers forced to leave their jobs for personal reasons such as illness, pregnancy, care of a family member, domestic violence, or sexual harassment.
   
• Forty-three states do not pay jobless benefits to part-time workers under the same rules that apply to full-time workers. ''Part-time work is a significant means through which women adjust work schedules to avoid work conflicts,'' said the report.

On the positive side, 18 states, including Massachusetts, have provisions that permit women who quit their jobs because of domestic violence to collect unemployment insurance. ''Studies show that abuse follows women to work in three-quarters of domestic abuse cases,'' the authors said. ''When a woman is forced to leave a job for reasons of abuse, she should have access to unemployment insurance benefits.''

DIANE E. LEWIS

E-Mail This Article